Occam's Razor actually states that the simplest explanation that addresses all observations is correct. People tend to neglect that clause at the end, which allows them to incorrectly introduce the "God did it!" suggestion without first accounting for God's existence.
Your example of the geocentric universe is a poor one, since the Ptolemaic view was replaced by the heliocentric solar system, which accounted for planetary motion with fewer starting assumptions.
Here is my insight into gods' existence: Humans fear the unknown. Death is the great unknown. Humans also have imaginations that can be used to comfort themselves, as well as a mile-wide (on average) gullibility streak. Now, is it more likely that people could deceive themselves, or that a god could exist? I lean toward the former; others choose to deceive themselves.:)
Attributing an act to god serves no purpose other than giving warm-and-fuzzy feelings.
The question of whether or not there is a god is second only in importance to whether or not there is a boogeyman under the bed, with similar stakes.
Because they would use a slanted definition such as "a trust in the trustworthiness of something", that means the same thing but doesn't make them look like an idiot. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough
Yes, actually, I have read it; also with the Screwtape Letters. I can't stomach the Narnia series, though.
Lewis' argument boils down to "Christianity is true because it provides a moral code and is pleasing." I don't believe that to be a valid criterion for truth. Furthermore, what pleases Lewis may not please me.
The Bible told us the earth was round, then science eventually reached the same conclusion.
The Bible told us to have stable marriages and families, now we realize that telling kids they can have all the sex they want with no consequences isn't *quite* the best idea.
The bible told men they must impregnate their brother's widows or face death, too. Furthermore, I don't know anyone who is in favor of telling kids that sexual intercourse comes without consequences. Also, the bible says to circumcise your kids, and we know now that there is no reason to do so.
After thinking about it. Logically! I have decided that reason is the best way to determine what to do, not consulting a bunch of stories told by a gang of illiterates who have been dead for two millennia.
2) Every word contained within your blog is an example of evidence that bolsters your faith?
3) Some portion of your blog contains what you consider to be evidence of your faith?
I suspect it's case 3, and it would be sane to post that portion in response rather than expect anyone to pore through your pages of ruminations and evaluate each sentence as evidence of your faith.
I think the fact remains that almost no Christian thinkers have defined faith as "belief without evidence."
Of course not. That would make them look like idiots. No Muslim thinkers have defined Jyhad as "war on those that hold different beliefs than us", either. In other news, garbage men prefer to referred to as waste-management artisans.
Their "existence"s are more like observable facts, hypotheses, or postulates rather than theories.
Not at the time the theories originated. Indeed, their observation resulted from attempts to prove or disprove the respective theories.
Given the axioms of Euclidean Geometry, it is a statement that is provably true.
As is the following statement: "Species change over time."
Any debate about evolution is regarding its mechanism, not its existence.
I didn't expect such hair-splitting, but in the interest of complete disclosure, gather 'round Uncle Krispee's rocking chair...
jbenqt is correct; a mathematical theorem is distinct from a scientific theory in that the former can be proven absolutely, while the latter can potentially be disproven. I retract my example of the theorem of Pythagoras as a theory, but make the observation that the other examples are backed by a body of evidence so overwhelming as to lend them a certainty approaching that of Pythagoras's theorem.
The definition of faith you are talking about has a name. It's called fideism. In the history of Christian thought, there have been approximately zero fideists. So, while your definition has the advantages of being very simple and of answering your question in a particular case, it suffers from being mostly irrelevant.
Since "fideism" is used as a derogative term, it is little wonder that the number of people rallying under its flag is zero.
Moreover, "fideism" implies an absolute, exclusive reliance upon faith, as in, "No need to get up out of bed, I have faith that my feeding and waste-evacuation will be taken care of magically." This ensures that any true fideist would eliminate themselves before they could stand up and be counted.
Again, no one was saying that this was the case, and your argument is therefore the proverbial man of straw.
What is commonplace, however, are religious people who rely on the creature comforts provided by science while also remaining willfully ignorant of the means whereby their comforts are provided.
This is not exactly fideism, since they only favor faith to the extent that their comfort allows. Again, though, no one is rallying on behalf of fideism, just as there is no Church of Gentiles- it's a derogatory term intended to disparage those one disagrees with.
This is a higher percentage than would refrain from voting for any of the other, conventionally unpalatable alternatives offered, including a homosexual candidate.
...without having faith. All you have to believe in to be Muslim is that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.
For which there is no evidence, just like any other religious prerequisite.
Buddhists and Taoists would laugh at this debate.
Buddhists believe in the transmigration of souls, for which, again, there is no evidence.
I understand that Taoism is not considered a religion, however, it seems to be such a mishmash of contradictions that it can be understood to say anything or nothing at all. In that spirit then, it is both completely compatible with science and entirely opposed to it- at the same time.
As an agnostic (I guess? I just don't care about religion, one way or another.), "your kind of thinking" has lead to the bloodiest, most devastating conflicts on the planet*. The crusades were nothing compared to World War II... the age of the tank, fighter, bomber, battleship, aircraft carrier and nuke.
Yes, because people weren't killing each other over trifling differences before the advent of the scientific method. The clear solution is to go back to the good old days when everyone lived in caves and cowered from the powerful gods during thunderstorms.
In general, those who've utilized scientific progress for the purposes of bloodshed have not been those who actually made the progress.
Regarding the nuclear bomb, there is widespread belief that it actually saved lives by ending WWII sooner than would otherwise have been possible. This is, of course, unprovable absent a time machine to back and alter events, but it does serve to illustrate that the situation is not as simple as "BOMB BAD!".
By your logic, if the war had been won by killing people with bayonets and bullets (or even better, sticks and stones!) over years or decades, it would have been better than using a nuke, even if exactly the same death toll had been incurred.
Off the top of my head, genetically engineered crops which allow the same amount of acreage to feed many times the amount of people owe an obvious debt to evolutionary biology. Many people oppose such genetic engineering, however, the opposition does not stem from the quarter that is being spared famine, so I feel it should be ignored until everyone has the luxury of abundant food.
It is apparent that the internal combustion engine can be invented without knowledge of evolution- in fact, it was. However, even if there were no direct applications of evolutionary knowledge, the truth is inherently valuable. It is better to believe a humbling truth than a flattering lie.
The person who believes "I don't share an ancestor with an ape, I was fashioned with divine purpose from dirt." in spite of the prevailing evidence to the contrary is more likely to disregard further evidence that could lead to useful technological developments.
Also, since you seem to be emphasizing evolution's status as a theory, in the context of science, a "theory" possesses the highest level of certainty. Those with an intention to mislead others often characterize evolution as "only a theory", when it has been proven beyond a doubt that species change over time.
Other things which are "only theories" include:
*The existence of germs. *The existence of atoms. *The existence of tectonic plates. *The square of the length of a right triangle's hypotenuse's being equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides' lengths.
Oddly, one rarely hears these items decried as being "only theories". I suspect it is because they do not contradict saccharine lies about the origin of humanity.
They can coexist, as oil and water can coexist. The pertinent question, as the kids are asking these days, is "Will it blend?"
The answer is a definite no, religious apologists aside.* By definition, faith is belief in something without evidence. Science requires the collection and examination of evidence.
Also, this "kind of thinking" is the best policy to guard against a dark age, where every scientific discovery required a "look how this glorifies the creator" clause.
*Spare me the list of notable scientists who also held superstitious beliefs. Isaac Newton was interested in alchemy, but that does not mean his more legitimate accomplishments are dependent on the legitimacy of alchemy.
We had a rule, though...you could pick Oddjob if you wanted, but whatever your kill count was at the end of the round, we got to punch you that many times.
Oddjob was never a problem for my comrades and I- we figured that his smaller hitbox was balanced by the increased ease of shooting him in the head.;)
"I think religion should get out of marriage... Gays have a strong weapon by pushing the separation of church and state."
I see it a different way: Government should get out of marriage, and cease offering tax breaks to those who participate in a religious ceremony.
Then everyone could get married according to whichever superstitious beliefs they follow, although I wonder if removing financial incentives might dampen many homosexuals' desire for matrimony.
It is my understanding that there is no such thing as an ex-Marine: Once the Corps strips one's indentity and fills one with subservience, one is an unthinking drone forevermore. This is partially due to the intensity of the Marine Corps' boot camp; its victims feel obliged to assign a nobility to their suffering, rather than believe that they have suffered needlessly.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled/. thread, already in progress...
I am anxious to see whether Verizon backpedals sooner or later. Also, ISP's should have no say in whether or not they are common carriers, since they obviously meet the definition of same.
Slashdot Mirror
Occam's Razor actually states that the simplest explanation that addresses all observations is correct. People tend to neglect that clause at the end, which allows them to incorrectly introduce the "God did it!" suggestion without first accounting for God's existence.
Your example of the geocentric universe is a poor one, since the Ptolemaic view was replaced by the heliocentric solar system, which accounted for planetary motion with fewer starting assumptions.
Here is my insight into gods' existence: Humans fear the unknown. Death is the great unknown. Humans also have imaginations that can be used to comfort themselves, as well as a mile-wide (on average) gullibility streak. Now, is it more likely that people could deceive themselves, or that a god could exist? I lean toward the former; others choose to deceive themselves. :)
Attributing an act to god serves no purpose other than giving warm-and-fuzzy feelings.
The question of whether or not there is a god is second only in importance to whether or not there is a boogeyman under the bed, with similar stakes.
Because they would use a slanted definition such as "a trust in the trustworthiness of something", that means the same thing but doesn't make them look like an idiot. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough
In truth, I don't really care about Newton's personal life or feelings. His Laws of Motion are sufficiently interesting for me.
As for myself, I consider the study of nature to be the study of truth, which is (again, to me) more important than studying God.
As far as nature being evidence of god- what a coincidence that all religions claim that, right before they say that all other religions are false. ;)
I consider the idea that god created anything to have no explanatory power, unless some insight is given into the origins of god.
Otherwise, the problem is simply pushed back a step, and Occam's Razor forbids that.
Yes, actually, I have read it; also with the Screwtape Letters. I can't stomach the Narnia series, though.
Lewis' argument boils down to "Christianity is true because it provides a moral code and is pleasing." I don't believe that to be a valid criterion for truth. Furthermore, what pleases Lewis may not please me.
The Bible told us the earth was round, then science eventually reached the same conclusion.
The bible actually specifies a flat earth, and it takes quite a bit of wiggling to interpret it otherwise.
The Bible told us to have stable marriages and families, now we realize that telling kids they can have all the sex they want with no consequences isn't *quite* the best idea.
The bible told men they must impregnate their brother's widows or face death, too. Furthermore, I don't know anyone who is in favor of telling kids that sexual intercourse comes without consequences. Also, the bible says to circumcise your kids, and we know now that there is no reason to do so.
After thinking about it. Logically! I have decided that reason is the best way to determine what to do, not consulting a bunch of stories told by a gang of illiterates who have been dead for two millennia.
Which of the following is true:
1) Your blog's existence bolsters your faith?
2) Every word contained within your blog is an example of evidence that bolsters your faith?
3) Some portion of your blog contains what you consider to be evidence of your faith?
I suspect it's case 3, and it would be sane to post that portion in response rather than expect anyone to pore through your pages of ruminations and evaluate each sentence as evidence of your faith.
That's all.
I think the fact remains that almost no Christian thinkers have defined faith as "belief without evidence."
Of course not. That would make them look like idiots. No Muslim thinkers have defined Jyhad as "war on those that hold different beliefs than us", either. In other news, garbage men prefer to referred to as waste-management artisans.
Their "existence"s are more like observable facts, hypotheses, or postulates rather than theories.
Not at the time the theories originated. Indeed, their observation resulted from attempts to prove or disprove the respective theories.
Given the axioms of Euclidean Geometry, it is a statement that is provably true.
As is the following statement: "Species change over time."
Any debate about evolution is regarding its mechanism, not its existence.
I didn't expect such hair-splitting, but in the interest of complete disclosure, gather 'round Uncle Krispee's rocking chair...
jbenqt is correct; a mathematical theorem is distinct from a scientific theory in that the former can be proven absolutely, while the latter can potentially be disproven. I retract my example of the theorem of Pythagoras as a theory, but make the observation that the other examples are backed by a body of evidence so overwhelming as to lend them a certainty approaching that of Pythagoras's theorem.
Religious beliefs follow DIRECTLY from application of sound reason, logic, and science.
And yet you proceed to say:
Religion was around long before science...
Still more fun:
our country was a lot better at turning out real, productive science back when we had prayer in schools.
Correlation != causation. I could say the same thing about slavery being legal or gasoline being cheaper.
404 File not found. :D
Broken link aside though, he asked for evidence of your faith and you gave him a link to your blog.
Dick move.
The definition of faith you are talking about has a name. It's called fideism. In the history of Christian thought, there have been approximately zero fideists. So, while your definition has the advantages of being very simple and of answering your question in a particular case, it suffers from being mostly irrelevant.
Since "fideism" is used as a derogative term, it is little wonder that the number of people rallying under its flag is zero.
Moreover, "fideism" implies an absolute, exclusive reliance upon faith, as in, "No need to get up out of bed, I have faith that my feeding and waste-evacuation will be taken care of magically." This ensures that any true fideist would eliminate themselves before they could stand up and be counted.
Again, no one was saying that this was the case, and your argument is therefore the proverbial man of straw.
What is commonplace, however, are religious people who rely on the creature comforts provided by science while also remaining willfully ignorant of the means whereby their comforts are provided.
This is not exactly fideism, since they only favor faith to the extent that their comfort allows. Again, though, no one is rallying on behalf of fideism, just as there is no Church of Gentiles- it's a derogatory term intended to disparage those one disagrees with.
Just because a few "atheist books" have been published is not indicative that the tide has turned.
A recent poll shows that over half the U.S. populace would not vote for a candidate if he or she did not believe in god.
This is a higher percentage than would refrain from voting for any of the other, conventionally unpalatable alternatives offered, including a homosexual candidate.
...without having faith. All you have to believe in to be Muslim is that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.
For which there is no evidence, just like any other religious prerequisite.
Buddhists and Taoists would laugh at this debate.
Buddhists believe in the transmigration of souls, for which, again, there is no evidence.
I understand that Taoism is not considered a religion, however, it seems to be such a mishmash of contradictions that it can be understood to say anything or nothing at all. In that spirit then, it is both completely compatible with science and entirely opposed to it- at the same time.
As an agnostic (I guess? I just don't care about religion, one way or another.), "your kind of thinking" has lead to the bloodiest, most devastating conflicts on the planet*. The crusades were nothing compared to World War II... the age of the tank, fighter, bomber, battleship, aircraft carrier and nuke.
Yes, because people weren't killing each other over trifling differences before the advent of the scientific method. The clear solution is to go back to the good old days when everyone lived in caves and cowered from the powerful gods during thunderstorms.
In general, those who've utilized scientific progress for the purposes of bloodshed have not been those who actually made the progress.
Regarding the nuclear bomb, there is widespread belief that it actually saved lives by ending WWII sooner than would otherwise have been possible. This is, of course, unprovable absent a time machine to back and alter events, but it does serve to illustrate that the situation is not as simple as "BOMB BAD!".
By your logic, if the war had been won by killing people with bayonets and bullets (or even better, sticks and stones!) over years or decades, it would have been better than using a nuke, even if exactly the same death toll had been incurred.
Off the top of my head, genetically engineered crops which allow the same amount of acreage to feed many times the amount of people owe an obvious debt to evolutionary biology. Many people oppose such genetic engineering, however, the opposition does not stem from the quarter that is being spared famine, so I feel it should be ignored until everyone has the luxury of abundant food.
It is apparent that the internal combustion engine can be invented without knowledge of evolution- in fact, it was. However, even if there were no direct applications of evolutionary knowledge, the truth is inherently valuable. It is better to believe a humbling truth than a flattering lie.
The person who believes "I don't share an ancestor with an ape, I was fashioned with divine purpose from dirt." in spite of the prevailing evidence to the contrary is more likely to disregard further evidence that could lead to useful technological developments.
Also, since you seem to be emphasizing evolution's status as a theory, in the context of science, a "theory" possesses the highest level of certainty. Those with an intention to mislead others often characterize evolution as "only a theory", when it has been proven beyond a doubt that species change over time.
Other things which are "only theories" include:
*The existence of germs.
*The existence of atoms.
*The existence of tectonic plates.
*The square of the length of a right triangle's hypotenuse's being equal to the sum of the square of the other two sides' lengths.
Oddly, one rarely hears these items decried as being "only theories". I suspect it is because they do not contradict saccharine lies about the origin of humanity.
They can coexist, as oil and water can coexist. The pertinent question, as the kids are asking these days, is "Will it blend?"
The answer is a definite no, religious apologists aside.* By definition, faith is belief in something without evidence. Science requires the collection and examination of evidence.
Also, this "kind of thinking" is the best policy to guard against a dark age, where every scientific discovery required a "look how this glorifies the creator" clause.
*Spare me the list of notable scientists who also held superstitious beliefs. Isaac Newton was interested in alchemy, but that does not mean his more legitimate accomplishments are dependent on the legitimacy of alchemy.
On the other hand, if the president has been kidnapped by ninjas, I can only hope that we would employ bad enough dudes to rescue him.
We had a rule, though...you could pick Oddjob if you wanted, but whatever your kill count was at the end of the round, we got to punch you that many times.
Oddjob was never a problem for my comrades and I- we figured that his smaller hitbox was balanced by the increased ease of shooting him in the head. ;)
To provide that choice. :)
"I think religion should get out of marriage... Gays have a strong weapon by pushing the separation of church and state."
I see it a different way: Government should get out of marriage, and cease offering tax breaks to those who participate in a religious ceremony.
Then everyone could get married according to whichever superstitious beliefs they follow, although I wonder if removing financial incentives might dampen many homosexuals' desire for matrimony.
or, "Liberals want a welfare state. Conservatives want a corporate welfare state."
bad form to quote myself, I know...
Would it not suffice for the Malthusians you speak of to sterilize themselves and advocate that others do the same?
Please do not suggest Gimp or PSP.
Perhaps inkscape is the GPL'd vector image editor you seek.
On topic: Everyone, please cease mentioning that Photoshop went to pot with the CS namechange, lest Adobe pulls a Comcast-esque rebranding.
To the extent that a meter is a theoretical value.
(apparently he claimed bikers cooked a cat on a grill in his district
Ah, so Eli Porter is now cooling his heels in the outback...
Another of life's great mysteries resolved.
Willingly incurring the karma hit, because when else will I be able to reference "cat on the grill"?
It is my understanding that there is no such thing as an ex-Marine: Once the Corps strips one's indentity and fills one with subservience, one is an unthinking drone forevermore. This is partially due to the intensity of the Marine Corps' boot camp; its victims feel obliged to assign a nobility to their suffering, rather than believe that they have suffered needlessly.
For more information, click here to read about cognitive dissonance.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled /. thread, already in progress...
I am anxious to see whether Verizon backpedals sooner or later. Also, ISP's should have no say in whether or not they are common carriers, since they obviously meet the definition of same.